Republican Rep. Scott Rigell makes case for revenue

Congressman Scott Rigell, one of the most outspoken Republicans to rebuke Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge, has sent a letter to his colleagues laying out the conservative case for increased revenue.

Not long ago, the missive would have been heresy among the GOP faithful. But as Speaker John Boehner struggles to cut a fiscal cliff deal with President Barack Obama — and keep his at times unruly troops behind him — the Virginia Republican’s letter appears to try and provide some cover for Boehner — and convince conservatives who have balked at the speaker’s original offer to the White House.

Text Size

-

+

reset

In the letter, sent to every member of the Republican Conference, Rigell said he supported Boehner’s offer to the White House that included $800 billion in revenue through tax reform. Boehner’s proposal did not call for raising tax rates, but generating revenue through closing loopholes in the Tax Code.

The freshman shared much of what he stated in the letter during a meeting of the Republican Conference last week, when GOP leaders were in the room. In an interview about the letter, which was obtained by POLITICO, Rigell said he has not received any pushback to his argument.

He argues even the most conservative budget proposed by the Republican Study Committee lacks enough spending cuts to prevent long-term deficits. Translation: Rigell believes the Americans for Tax Reform pledge means red ink as far as the eye can see under every budget Republicans have voted for.

“Even if the RSC Budget (which I support and voted for) becomes law and the economy grows at a robust rate, continued deficit spending and escalating debt are inevitable,” Rigell wrote. “Increasing revenues through tax reform (as well as through growth) is a mathematical — and fiscally conservative — imperative.”

RSC spokesman Brian Straessle says the group’s budget eventually does balance after five years.

“The RSC budget eliminates the deficit and balances in five years by cutting spending. It’s President Obama’s proposal and $1.6 trillion tax hike that allows deficits ‘as far as the eye can see,’” Straessle said in an email that included a link to the group’s budget proposals.

“I’m making the case, and I have made it explicitly here, that there is a contradiction and as I refer to it, a serious defect with in our own policy,” Rigell said. “That is through the Americans for Tax Reform pledge we’ve locked in a level of revenue … and we have not voted to take spending to that level.”

Rigell went out of his way to say he wouldn’t support a plan that lacks significant spending cuts.

The ATR pledge requires that a change in the Tax Code to close loopholes be revenue-neutral by bringing down rates. Rigell said the math, “using a careful review of CBO data,” just doesn’t make sense without additional revenues.

“If you said, under a hypothetical scenario, everything the Republicans wanted passed, we’d still have … a structural deficit, and there’d be deficit spending,” he said. “This is mathematically indefensible as a conservative. It violates a conservative core tenet that we’re not going to spend more than we are taking in.”

Readers' Comments (4)

Someone explain to me how this is news. No tax increases. Just the old losing loopholes, and not one loophole mentioned.

Boehner and crew have backed themselves into a corner. They demand spending cuts, just refuse to say what they want to cut. We know it's not defense or oil and tax breaks to GE so what is it?

It's like a talking to a child,

POTUS: Here's what we want to do raise revenue to what it was and some infrastructure spending and unemployment insurance to help the masses..

Boehner & GOP: That's not what we want. We want the exact opposite. We want tax cuts and cuts to all social programs that do not benefit us. We do not need SS, we have a pension. We don't need Medicare, we have healthcare for life. Look at Dick, do you think Medicare would have paid for a heart?

POTUS: So what do you want?

Boehner and GOP: Other than lower taxes, we're not going to say. If we did say then nobody would vote for us, but what you have is not what we want. So go take a long walk on a short path. We did this dance with Newt and we did this dance 2 years ago. We like to dance, its better than working for a living. I need a drink and a smoke now.